Saturday, July 20, 2013

Smaller is Better: Iceland and the American Dream

Iceland is a small and ancient
nation, first colonized near the year 870 A.D. (1), that has preserved its
culture and language for more than a millennium and, despite the recent
turmoil, today enjoys one of the highest standards of living in the world.The United States by contrast is a huge
nation, the third largest population in the world (2).Despite their differences, the U.S. and
Iceland have many parallels in terms of why they were founded and the goals of
the people who subsequently moved there: the Icelandic Dream of the Viking
immigrant is similar to the American Dream of the pilgrim, the poor European,
the Chinese laborer, and all the other immigrants to America.Both nations were founded by independent
minded people seeking new lands for farming, opportunities for upward social
mobility, and an alternative to the oppressive monarchical societies of their
countries of origin (3, 4 p. 89). Both
established representative government at times when such governments were rare
in the world.Iceland’s low population
has been both an asset and a detriment to its ability to facilitate the
Icelandic Dream.The U.S. is in the fortunate position of having an overarching federal government with subordinate
Iceland-sized municipal and state governments.By taking into account the ways in which small government has been a
boon for Iceland as well as the ways in which it has been a challenge, the U.S.
can more optimally divide power among its different levels of government.

The
Icelandic government is an extraordinary testament to the power and efficiency
of local governments.According to data
from the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), Iceland
spends less money per student on education than the U.S., yet Icelandic
students outperformed US students on a standardized math and science test (5).Iceland is also home to six universities,
three of which are publicly funded, with a combined enrollment of 18,000
students (6).In the matter of health
care, a report by the World Health Organization (WHO) ranked the Icelandic
health care system 15th in the world, above Canada (30th),
the UK (18th) and the US (37th) (7).In addition, Iceland has more airports per
capita and more miles of paved roads per capita than the US (8, 9).The Icelandic government, representing a mere
300,000 people, has shown itself more than capable of effectively and
efficiently managing education, healthcare, and transportation.

In the U.S., the federal government
which represents more than 300 million people is deeply involved in all three
of these areas and does a poorer job at managing them than the Icelandic
government.Recently, the idea of
expanding national funding for health care has been a fiercely debated topic in
America.Iceland has shown that a system
of universal healthcare can not only deliver excellent service, but can also be
managed by local governments.Nationally
in the US, there is very little agreement about the proper way to handle health
care, but the example of Iceland demonstrates that it need not be a national
issue.City and state governments are
more than large enough to implement whatever kind of healthcare system their
citizens think is most appropriate.Similarly, the key to improving education in America may be to allow it
to be managed by the smallest unit of government possible, rather than to put
it under the oversight of huge organizations like the Department of
Education.Iceland’s successes and
America’s failures show that in matters that impact people’s everyday lives,
local management is far superior to national control.

There are some matters, however,
that the Icelandic government has proven itself less than capable of dealing
with, and which the American federal government can handle much better than
states and municipalities.Chief among
these are national defense and international relations.Despite a long desire, Iceland was not able
to gain independence from Denmark until Denmark was occupied by Germany in the
Second World War (3).During that same
conflict, Britain was able to occupy Iceland with absolutely no resistance (4
p. 238).In the 70’s, Iceland was unable
to have its way in the Cod War against Britain except through help from the US
and multinational treaties (3, 4 p. 246).More recently, Iceland has had to rely on loans from the IMF to help it
recover from its economic meltdown (10).In major conflicts and crises, Iceland is at the mercy of its more
powerful neighbors.America is better
able to deal with wars and crises than Iceland and has more leverage in
international affairs simply because the US federal government represents more
people, wealth, and guns than the Icelandic government.

The purpose of popular government is
to provide citizens with a stable environment in which they can pursue
happiness and upward social mobility.Iceland’s successes in the areas of education and healthcare demonstrate
that matters that affect people’s everyday lives are best handled by
governments that are accessible and responsive to people’s everyday
concerns.For Iceland, where 2% of the
population can easily riot at the door of the parliament building, that means
the national government, but for the U.S. where the national government is dark
and distant, that means local and state governments.A large national government is not without
its uses: America’s military power protects Americans against the whims of
foreign nations and provides leverage in international disputes.If America can learn from Iceland and allow
policies to be made by the lowest level of government possible, while still
relegating certain powers to the federal government, it can enjoy Icelandic
like efficiency, and simultaneously achieve stability against international
influence that Icelanders can only dream of.